Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Antoon Pardon Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 08:21 am Op 2005-09-27, William schreef : > "Antoon Pardon" wrote in message > news:slrndjhr4o.2t4.apardon@rcpc42.vub.ac.be... >> Op 2005-09-26, William schreef : >> > >> > Since we both have equal access to the available evidence, >> > but only one of us has asserted that they've studied it, >> > I kind of think you do prefer your belief system. >> >> You think I should be convinced just because you >> assert you have studied the evidence? > > No, I think you might question your belief because you > haven't. That's not the same thing as being convinced. Not being convinced (yet) by the arguments of the opponent is not contradictory with questioning one's belief. >> Are you convinced each time someone asserts he has >> studied the evidence? > > No, but it makes me wonder if I'm right and I go check > it out (unless I don't care, then I say I'm convinced > and they go away :-) Well maybe this is a cultural conflict. Where I live saying "I'm not convinced" usually means that the points raised by the oponent are recognized to have some validation, but that more is needed to convince. >> > By your >> > own assertion, anything I feed you will be biased, but you >> > don't seem inclined to do any looking on your own. >> >> You didn't give me much to go on, for looking things >> up. > > It was your assertion based on your opinion. How did you > form that opinion if you hadn't already checked at least > a few sources to see if it held up? Well I don't know about you, but I see plenty of plain people trying to solve all kind of problems for themselves and each other, without the need of a financial motivation. > Or at least encountered > the idea somewhere in a context that seemed authoritative. > (Authority isn't proof, but it is still supporting evidence.) > >> > You made the original assertion, it's been challenged, >> > your turn. Were I in your position, I'd have hopped over >> > to Google and checked out a few high profile inventors >> > and/or inventions and come up with a little support. >> >> Well what about Adolphe Sax? > > Not bad, although I'll point out that his family business > was musical instruments. (Which is a big gray area: people > who love their work - would they still do it if it paid > significantly less than they expect?) Yes his family business was musical instruments, but he also devised instruments that were unlikely to sell. At the age of 15 he made two flutes and a clarinet in ivory for an industrial exhibition. I don't deny that he tried to make a living out of his invention, but as far as I understand the drive of his invention was mostly the fact that there were huge sound differnces between the kind of instruments then available. His dream was een instrument that could bridge the tones between copper and wood instruments and between wood and snare instruments. >> My origininal remark was a protest against the notion >> that without money, motivation for inventing was as >> good as impossible. > Granted, and I agree. However, the general tenor of the > discussions is whether that is sufficient to provide a > decent flow of inventions from which society can benefit, > or does society benefit more by appealing to inventors' > interests in making a profit. I think those two don't contradict. It is possible that a decent flow of invention is possible without money as motivation but that the flow wil increase if inventors can profit from their inventions. > I think we've pretty much killed this portion of the topic, > time to move on to the next off-topic topic :-) Thanks again for the references. I'll be short of time for another month or two. -- Antoon Pardon .